p.p.s. Heading off your inevitable response at the pass, where you bleat about "Both the same, we need less government!", move to Somalia. There`s no government at all there. And everyone has a gun. It would be Utopia for you.

Has it ever occurred to you that the least democratic countries in the world are the ones that have democracy/republic right there in their titles? Heck, even I could pull that sh*t

By all means Ollie, you know how it really is. Who am I to argue, Libtard as I am? The vast majority of the planet recognizes that the Nazis were a far-right political position, as is Fascism in general. But you go ahead and move them to the left. Just as DRC is a democratic society, as is North Korea, as is Somalia, because it says so *RIGHT THERE IN THE NAME!!!!*

F*ck me, Ollie. You scare me. Not you personally, but because there are millions like you.

p.s. The Nazis were as far to the far right as it goes. We`ll admit Communism is left gone too far. Man the f*ck up and admit, as the rest of the world recognises, that Fascism is right gone too far.

[quote]@markust123 "Look up the KKK on Wikopedia." LOL! You go THERE for unbiased information on controversial political issues? No wonder you`re so ill-informed. Hell, those liberal idiots classify Nazis as "far right," even though their full name is the National SOCIALIST Workers Party[/quote] F*ck me gently. Ollie, are you really in that far out in space? Here`s a hot tip: sometimes regimes don`t be totally honest about the name of their movement. Examples:

[quote]I don`t oppose gay marriage, but I understand why you do.[/quote] I never said I opposed gay marriage. I said I oppose the proponents of gay marriage who are using fascist tactics to attack those who do oppose gay marriage.

@markust123 "Look up the KKK on Wikopedia." LOL! You go THERE for unbiased information on controversial political issues? No wonder you`re so ill-informed. Hell, those liberal idiots classify Nazis as "far right," even though their full name is the National SOCIALIST Workers Party, and their beliefs are indistinguishable from Stalin and Mao. And you still didn`t explain Robert Byrd.

HG, you try to discredit me by linking me to a bunch of idiots, lunatics, hate groups, and terrorists, and you say I`M the one who`s hard to debate with? LOL!

I don`t know how to make it more clear. During the time of Lincoln only the blacks and the extreme liberals were Republicans. And they remained Republicans for almost 100 years. That is why people like Martin Luther King Jr were Republicans. If he hadn`t been shot he would have moved to the Democratic party after Civil Rights in the late 60`s. You are a liar for trying to associate the Democratic party of the South during the time of Lincoln with the Democratic party of today. In the same breath you are a liar for trying to associate the KKK with liberals.

No, I don`t watch Glenn Beck. My school taught me the facts that pretty much everyone in the South (Except the blacks and the extreme liberals) moved to the democratic party during the time of Lincoln and stayed Democrats for almost 100 years. Do you honestly think the South was going to be a part of the party of Lincoln? You have had this explained to you at least 10 times on here. At this point you are just trolling putting out this lie. Look up the KKK on Wikopedia over on the right side of the page. What is that? Political Position: Far-right.

You are very difficult to debate with. I have a difference of opinion with megrendel and 5cats all the time. But they post links and data and facts to at least attempt to bolster their opinions. You haven`t done that once that I can remember. You just toss out talking points, insults, and profanity, like below. And you say things that are patently wrong (like conservatives don`t boycott) and then completely disregard it and move on when you are undeniably proven wrong (like my laundry list of conservative boycotts).

What doe that have to do with this discussion? We aren`t talking about republicans vs democrats. We are talking about supporters of gay marriage and opponents of gay marriage. Those are the sides I am referring to.

IrishJesus, my problem isn`t with gays or even with proponents of gay marriage. My problem is with the attacks, lies, smears, and slander directed toward the opponents of gay marriage. When a Democrat mayor says he intends to stop a business from opening in his city because he disagrees with a political position of its owner, that pure and unadulterated fascism, and yes, that really f***ing pisses me off.

I would punch that guy in the face. He is not representative of the group. All groups have a.ssholes. Look at your side. You have the KKK on your side.[/quote] This is yet another reason to abolish public schools. Didn`t they teach you that the KKK were all DEMOCRATS? Don`t you know that the Democrats picked a former KKK Grand Kleagle to be the President pro tem of the United States Senate.

Don`t fling YOUR $#!+ on MY house. Your side OWNS the Klan. This is just just another example of liberal slander -- trying to associate your political opponents with insane criminals and terrorists.

The lies and slander just flow from your fingers like $#!+ from a sewer, and you don`t even realize it.

[quote]There is nothing that bridges Henry Rollins to all of those on the left side of the political spectrum.[/quote] He just slandered his political opponents as being insane, i.e., suffering from "homophobia." Only liberals do that; therefore, he showed himself to be a liberal.

If some peckerwood preacher was saying that gays are all cursed by God and condemned to burn in hell for all eternity, you wouldn`t call out someone who called him a conservative, now would you?

That has been my point from the beginning. Your last two posts have done nothing but insult my intelligence. I am attempting to be sincere at this point. Admittedly, I came into this argument caustically, but I`m trying to be civil. If you choose to insult me again instead of responding in a logical manner, I understand and will move on from this forum.

This post is about Henry Rollins essentially calling those who oppose gay marriage homophobes, correct?

Your input on this was as follows (correct me if I`m wrong, we`re all here to learn from each other after all):

`Homophobe` is overused on those against gay marriage when many of them aren`t afraid of gays. (Side note, this isn`t what dug under my skin)

It`s a word used by the LIBERAL GAY AGENDA to smear those against gay marriage.

Liberals are liars and slanderers.

Do you see the problem in your logic? And it`s the same logic I`ve seen you apply ALL OVER THESE FORUMS. There is nothing that bridges Henry Rollins to all of those on the left side of the political spectrum. I know that`s how you feel about liberals...we ALL do. Yet you feel obligated to parrot it over and over when it has NO relevance.

"I`m saying that a lot of people on your side are using the exact same tactics as Hitler`s Brownshirts. I might be persuaded to support gay marriage, but not as long as the other side unwilling to engage in a CIVILIZED debate on the issue."

A civilized debate? Like Westboro Baptist Church? Because once again, that is who you are siding with. And there is nobody that bad over here. If you are picking which side of the issue you are on based solely on who is less civilized and who are bigger a.ssholes, here are the popel on your side:

The Westboro Baptist Church The Neo-Nazis The Aryan Brotherhood The guys who tortured and murdered Matthew Shepard Al-Qaeda The people who took part in the 30 gay-hate murders in 2011 The leaders in Uganda

Look around at who you side with. If I ever found myself on the same side of an issue as them I would switch immediately.

I would punch that guy in the face. He is not representative of the group. All groups have a.ssholes. Look at your side. You have the KKK on your side. You think Adam Smith is a bigger a.sshole than members of the KKK?

Stay on point. I`m not speaking for anyone else and you aren`t talking to anyone else.

"Have you ever heard of a conservative boycott against Starbucks, Ben & Gerry`s, or Amazon"

Yes. The national Organization for Marriage launched a large scale boycott of Starbucks and General Mills. The American Family Association organized a boycott of McDonalds. One Million Moms is boycotting Amazon. Oreos got boycotted. Advocates for Marriage organized a Ben and Jerry`s boycott. The list goes on and on. How can you even say that conservatives don`t boycott?

Trying doing the tiniest bit of research before you say something. A quick google search would do. It would prevent you from looking so ridiculous.

"like that nasty little prick Adam Smith"

I would punch that guy in the face. He is not representative of the group. All groups have a.ssholes. Look at your side. You ha

[quote]Fourth of all you are calling me a Nazi?[/quote] I`m saying that a lot of people on your side are using the exact same tactics as Hitler`s Brownshirts. I might be persuaded to support gay marriage, but not as long as the other side unwilling to engage in a CIVILIZED debate on the issue.

[quote]Third of all, how on Earth can you not get this? They are welcome to disagree with me.[/quote] The fact is, no one is "welcome to disagree" with these liberal fascists. They want to destroy anyone who disagrees with them. Democrat mayors said they intended to use the coercive power of the government stop Chick-Fil-A from opening restaurants in their cities. The rest of the libs want to smear, slander, and boycott anyone who disagrees with them. Have you ever heard of a conservative boycott against Starbucks, Ben & Gerry`s, or Amazon? No that`s strictly a liberal brown-shirt tactic.

I have no problem with anyone who is advocating for gay marriage. I do, however, have a BIG problem with the viscous tactics used by people on that side

I am ambivalent on the issue itself, but as long as these @$$holes, like that nasty little prick Adam Smith, continue their vile smears and attacks, I will oppose them.

Fourth of all you are calling me a Nazi? So I accept all people and think they should be treated equally and you think some people should be classified as second class citizens with less rights, and I`M the Nazi? HILARIOUS.

[quote]Ok, please point me to what exactly it is you want clarified.[/quote] So, you want me to make your argument for you? Okay, how about this?

"I am incapable of using facts and logic to make a compelling case supporting my position, so I will smear and slander my opponents in an attempt to discredit them personally without ever dealing with the substance of their argument."

"your refusal to recognize them as good and decent people because they disagree with you is what makes you a bigoted, intolerant Nazi prick."

In the first place they are trying to add constitutional amendments. And when laws get passed to allow it, they try to pass laws to repeal it. Some even try to block civil unions or any other rights whatsoever.

In the second place just because something has been a way for a long time does not make it right. I can list lots of things that existed for centuries that we all pretty much now agree were wrong.

Third of all, how on Earth can you not get this? They are welcome to disagree with me. I have no problem with it. They can live their life how they see fit, I would never try to impose my ideals or change their life. That is what they are trying to do, change how other people live their life because THEY disagree with it.

Madest never banned pmarren. There`s 3 bans for him - one permaban in 2010 by Nidonemo, which was lifted. Then a second permaban in 2010 by fancylad, which was lifted, then a third permaban in 2012 by fancylad, which is current.

@HG [quote]But when they fight to pass laws that force the rest of us to conform to their consciences and beliefs I cease to find them good and decent people.[/quote] In the first place, they aren`t fighting to pass any laws. They are fighting to keep the laws the way they have been for centuries. And in the second place, your refusal to recognize them as good and decent people because they disagree with you is what makes you a bigoted, intolerant Nazi prick.

@IrishJesus, you really ought to read posts before responding to them. You make yourself look like a complete fapping idiot. Of course, I`m sure you ARE a complete fapping idiot, but there`s no use announcing it to the entire Internet.

Come on now Gerry, to say that "One of the Mods just didn`t like his attitude" for the reason he was banned is just painting us like a bunch of power-hungry mall-cops. Which we`re not - I hope recent email exchange between you and I, and also Markust will back this up I hope, we`re not dicks.

When someone is banned, they`re banned for a reason. There comes a point where you have to trust to the judgement of your fellow mods (or in this case, the guy who runs the goddam site) and stop asking for another ban amnesty.

I know you`re buddies with pmarren. He was a dick on this site, not to me, but to others. He`s not coming back.

Nothing. One of the Mods just didn`t like his attitude.[/quote] Well, I wasn`t privy to the details, but pmarren has quite a chequered past here at IAB. In case anyone`s interested (and still readin this thread) on the pmarren case...

He was first permabanned in 2010 by Mod Nidonemo, for trolling. That was reversed by Fancylad, after discussion among the Mods. Then he was permabanned again later in 2010 by Fancylad, for (and I quote from the Mod Console) "constantly being a dick -- he has to go now.". He appealed, to me, and I pleaded Fancy to lift permaban #2 on him, which Fancy did. He`s a reasonable bloke, I promise.

Then, in 2012, Fancy Permabanned him for the third time. Dude, third strike, you`re out. That was the point I stopped asking.

Oh and fun fact. my avatar predates pedobear. I sometimes think of changing it but i technically never registered for IAB and i want to keep it that way. If i actively change my profile it would make me feel like i was commiting to this site

wow, SpaceRanger, i thought it was going to take a while before i got you to admit you were a pedophile, but you went ahead and brought it up right away. I thought I was going to have to bring up how the only reason you were posting these reddit meme`s were to get in good with the 12-16 year old crowd. Then you`d be all like "hey, you like those pics, you wanna see a really good one - i have to email it to you though" then bam! [email protected] pic.

"Markus - You gotta get a tougher skin, man. One bad joke from a douchebag is no reason to consider leaving."

Sorry but I want him banned. His picture went way to far. And when he was called out by me and two other people there was no apology, only a lie and more personal attacks. I have thick skin but what if the next person he attacks is a teen who has already been pushed to the edge by hate? I`ve seen people banned for direct racism. Christ, I`ve seen someone banned for saying "First". I would hope a direct over the top bigoted attack against a gay IAB`r doesn`t fly here. I will not be a part of a community that allows that.

@ ButtRanger... I mean "SpaceRanger", Really? At your age you`re still drawing penis` on pictures. If you were 13 it could slide but when you`re pushing 40 I guess most people would expect you to act like an adult. {Yes, I know calling you "ButtRanger" is juvenile, too. I was illustrating a point. I thought I`d point that out in case you are really as clueless as you appear.} Now stop picking on my buddy Markus.

@ Markus - You gotta get a tougher skin, man. One bad joke from a douchebag is no reason to consider leaving.

We don`t think you should conform to ours. We don`t think you should get gay married. We think you should live your life the way you see fit. Live it by the bible or whatever set of morality you like. We don`t force you to live by our ideals. You are trying to force gay people and the rest of us to live by yours. How do you not see the difference?

"However, the constant attacks and slander against good and decent people whose consciences and deeply held beliefs tell them otherwise is absolutely despicable."

People`s consciences and beliefs are fine. I respect theirs. I would never try to pass a law that disallows them to practice them. But when they fight to pass laws that force the rest of us to conform to their consciences and beliefs I cease to find them good and decent people.

@TruTenrMan "I`m not against gay UNIONS. I`m against gay MARRIAGES. There is a religious difference to me. THAT`S what I can`t get my lesbian sister-in-law to understand."

I am friends with a married lesbian couple. The one that is closest to me told me a story about her sister who is just like you. The sister had refused to go to the wedding and tried and tried to talk them out of it. On the day of the wedding the sister showed up at the church. My friends were beaming. But instead of giving them a hug she gave them a letter which basically said they were going to burn in hell if they did not stop this abomination right now. It broke their hearts. What you are doing by trying to get your sister to "understand" is breaking her heart. I can`t imagine the pain you are causing them. You are being about as un-Christlike as possible. If Christ came back today he would slap you across the face and say, No!

Many ancient Roman marriages were accompanied by religion, but the marriage itself was areligious. The sole requirement was personal. These were Roman citizens, the most important people in the world (from a Roman point of view). Their word was what mattered. A joint statement of marriage was marriage. Only the ancient form of marriage amongst the nobility was religious.

[quote]I`m not against gay UNIONS. I`m against gay MARRIAGES. There is a religious difference to me.[/quote]

Personally, I don`t care what it says on the forms. I`m interested in the legal rights. I can marry another man if we want to and that`s fine by me. I don`t care if the official forms are labelled "marriage", "civil partnership", "Form E172-Q" or anything else.

But your religion argument doesn`t hold water for two reasons:

1) Law. You are not arguing for a religious marriage to have no legal status at all. You are, therefore, not arguing for "marriage" to be a religious word.

2) Etymology. The word "marriage" can be traced back as far as Latin in pagan Rome. So the only religion relevant to the word itself would be the ancient Roman religion. However, ancient Roman marriages were not religious. So the word isn`t religious.

I find it odd that I an atheist was able to marry in church....(I went with it because my partner wanted a church wedding) and then I was allowed to marry again when that one failed - and no one in the church batted an eyelid that a non-believer was there getting married. Yet they still exclude gay people...and think it`s right.

Of course, here in the UK if they didn`t turn a blind eye to atheists marrying in their church, they`d lose the £320 per marriage you have to pay....and with the number of atheists here that would hurt them a lot more than it does to carry on excluding the gays who are in smaller numbers.

so it appears there`s a price on their morality... if they stand to lose a large chunk of money, then morality is negotiable.

"I`m not against gay UNIONS. I`m against gay MARRIAGES. There is a religious difference to me. " -------------- That`s right. A religious difference to YOU. Not to the rest of us. Why is it you think that the rest of us should conform to your ideas? You see, this is the reason that a lot of atheists get so pissed off. This is the reason why we have started to stand up for ourselves and force the Sky Wizard people back under their rocks.

TruTenrMan: "I just care about the term "marriage" and what it means to me as a Roman Catholic." ---------------------

When my wife and I got married, we did it before a judge, at city hall. There was no mention of God or religion. We are still considered to be "married" even though the church had nothing to do with it. What baffles me is that all of the "nut bar" Christians out there feel as though they own the word. What needs to happen is all of the Christians that hold hate in their hearts and worship and evil genie, need to go away and let the rest of us live our lives the way we want to. Stop trying to force your backwards thinking onto others.

"I`m not against gay UNIONS. I`m against gay MARRIAGES. There is a religious difference to me. "

christianity didn`t invent marriages you know, they don`t own the concept.... they just added the God bit on to earlier rituals. The Sumarians were performing marriages thousands of years before christianity... should Christians not be able to add the God bit in because they didn`t invent marriage? No..but that`s what you`re saying the rule about gays isn`t it? That religion basically now owns the rights to the word or concept of marriage and no one else should then be able to ammend the concept without the permission of religious institutions.

Not wanting to argue all morning is not admitting defeat. It just means I don`t feel like textually jousting on a website all morning. But if thinking otherwise makes you feel better about yourself and your stance on the issue, then by all means believe whatever you want to believe, Frank.

[quote]Christianity didn`t invent marriages you know, they don`t own the concept.... they just added the God bit on to earlier rituals. The Sumarians were performing marriages thousands of years before christianity... should Christians not be able to marry because they didn`t invent it? ~Listypoos[/quote] Yes, and those early marriages were always between a man and a woman. It was all about propogation of the species.

[quote]Glad I could help. ~BoredFrank[/quote] You don`t know me. Don`t assume you know my thought process. If I was a homophobe, I wouldn`t talk to my lesbian sister-in-law or her girlfriends. Screw off. I don`t care what she does in her own home, I just care about the term "marriage" and what it means to me as a Roman Catholic. For a bunch of people who preach tollerance, the LGBT community sure hates opposing opinions.

TruTenrMan writes: "I`m not against gay UNIONS. I`m against gay MARRIAGES. There is a religious difference to me. THAT`S what I can`t get my lesbian sister-in-law to understand."

I can help!

Just preface your arguments with the following statement, and your lesbian sister in law will understand.

Say this:

"I, truTenrMan, am a complete and total idiot. A moron. Honestly, it`s a wonder I ever learned to tie my own shoes. As a knuckle-walking inbred imbecile, my religion of choice is also a monumental collection of abject stupidity, and one of its teachings is that I am to be terrified and hate anyone who is different. So that`s why I am against gay marriage -- because I`m an idiot. Please forgive me."

Since when does accepting the definition of a marriage being between 1 man and 1 woman, as it has been for thousands of years, mean that someone is afraid of homosexuals?

See the argument Henry Rollins is making is framed within his own illogical paramters so it may seem to be acceptable until you actually think through hi argument and identify his errors in using words with well established meanings.

The important question is:

Why does Henry Rollins project his insecurity about being homosexual against heterosexuals who have no problem with their identity? His comments poorly mask his issues. Maybe he needs counseling to come to terms with the fact that he is gay. Maybe then , he won`t be critical of and offensive to those who are different than him.

While I realize I have now contradicted myself by actually engaging in an argument, I feel I have my feet too deep in the sh*t to step out now.

My primary point is this: every time I come to this site, I run across many different points and opinions, many of which I do not agree with. However, I respect these opinions as they are typically in the form of an actual ARGUMENT that can be followed, although it may be based in incongruence (that goes for both sides of any given argument).

With you, however, all I have seen is a sloppy and rushed argument that for some strange reason always ends with you blaming EVERYTHING on the left political spectrum, as if it has any real power. If you honestly cannot see beyond black and white bullsh*t that`s fed to you from your favorite media outlet and you`re in your 50`s, I am quite frankly disturbed.

I mean Jesus Christ, this is a post about sexual orientation and you COMPLETELY flipped it to liberals. Bravo.

OldOllie: You don`t understand. I have no desire to have an argument with you. I don`t care to delve deeper into what you think, because EVERYTHING I have seen you write has been single-track, finger-pointing garbage. I don`t typically get into internet debates unless I have a substantial interest in making a point.

This one is cut and dry: there`s no reason two consenting adults shouldn`t have the opportunity for legal unity if other consenting adults have that opportunity. I don`t care what your religion says because it is not our legal system. Your religion be damned if you feel it should truly hold power in our government.

Your spouting of "liberal gay political agenda" is truly odd...as if the homosexual representatives (Elton John and Neil Patrick Harris I assume head the board) got together and said, "Hey, let`s create a word that demonizes those good, moral American folk."

Personally I`ve found that most biggots with predujices toward gay people always seem to focus their minds on the sex aspect.... like `oh i don`t like gays... just the thought of two guys having sex makes me sick`.

why is the sex part of a relationship the first thing their minds jump to and can`t get over? they never seem to focus the wrongness on two people sat in front of the tv, going out for dinner or a movie, just generally enjoying each other`s company and love.... no, it`s always the sex part.

There is too much bawwing cry baby poo with this gay crap! My only problem with gay people is that they bitch about everything. 1st world problems!Here is one for you. im not a homophobe or a bible humper. 2 people of the same sex should not get married based on the cold hard fact that it is drating weird. Legal life partners YES! Married couple NO!. Besides that gays should have the same rights as anyone. Also marriage is a privilege NOT a right. That is why you have to get a MARRIAGE LICENSE. I do think there should be a legal way in every state that gays can be legally committed for tax reasons to each other. The wording should be different though and gays should understand that. They should also understand their lifestyle is awkward.

[quote]It shouldn`t be the responsibility of those who support gay marriage to say why they should be allowed to. It should be the responsibility of those that oppose it.[/quote] So, you want to change an institution that`s been the norm for 1000s of years, and the burden of proof is on ME to justify NOT changing it?

Actually, I think we should abolish ALL laws concerning marriage, and let people do whatever the hell they want.

If you want to get married, it shouldn`t be any concern of the government at all. Just have a ceremony (or not). You can sign a domestic partnership contract, mutual durable powers-of-attorney, and wills to leave your property to each other. And if you want to call it "marriage" it`s not my place to say you can`t.

However, the constant attacks and slander against good and decent people whose consciences and deeply held beliefs tell them otherwise is absolutely despicable.

Ok, here`s an argument: The men and women`s bathroom. Should be a separate bathroom for gays. Why can`t men go into women`s bathrooms and vice versa? Because we men are pigs. Men have sex on the brain constantly (as do some women), and in a gay man`s case, the gay might try lewd acts upon other men in the confines of the restroom. Call us homophobes for this? This is entirely unacceptable. Google the name "Larry Craig," you`ll see what I mean.

There is no valid argument against this, the evidence of the Craig case is enough to say no more gay men in straight men`s restrooms.

Same goes for locker rooms. For a straight man, the women`s locker room is one place you`d love to venture into. There`s half naked women in there. So what is the gay thinking while around half dressed men? Again, unacceptable by any means.

No, I get what you were saying. I wasn`t attempting to be argumentative. I was just taking what you said a bit further. Bigotry isn`t excused by personal beliefs or natural aversions. The sign of a bigot is someone who thinks everyone should be like them.

@HolyGod I`m not sure what you`re trying to say so let me clarify what I`m trying to say. I`m not saying that nobody but homophobes find it off putting or that anyone who does is automatically a homophobe but that the most, or at the very least a decent portion, extreme opponents of gay marriage, deep down, find the idea of gay sex nauseating but they try to hide that fact behind religion, politics, etc.. And that it doesn`t matter what they think anyway because we`ll probably see the legalization of gay marriage in most of the western world within our life time.

Also isn`t most sex kind of nasty anyways? I mean most of us aren`t supermodels and most of us have sex in the dark for a reason... except for you HolyGod of course, I`m sure you some kind of Adonis, I mean you`re god for chrissake.

NOCASH, are you telling me to shut up? I was listening to this old man`s hardkore rant when you were in diapers. He constantly appeals to the same age group. He is always waging against the machine. Err...I mean raging.

thelonious, when people actually want to hear and respect what you have to say or you at least always make a valid point, you may just be able to make a living "opening your mouth". Like Mr. Rollins said "When we start shutting up that`s when we start losing our civil liberties, I think no one should be shutting up."

OldOllie....for the most part, everyone against people being gay are entirely afraid of homosexuality. usually because they are afraid of it spreading, or bringing about some bad religious BS by pissing off god, or they are afraid of what their children will think, etc. if you HATE gays, it has to be because you are afraid somethign will happen by people being gay. otherwise, you either dont care, dont agree with being gay, or support gays. those are he ONLY options. if you cant accept it, keep your dumb mouth shut

We actually agree for once. I hate the word homophobe. I don`t think you have a fear of gay people. I just prefer the word bigot. If you think another human being has any fewer rights than you do because of their gender, race, or sexual orientation you are a bigot. We don`t need new words.

It shouldn`t be the responsibility of those who support gay marriage to say why they should be allowed to. It should be the responsibility of those that oppose it. So far I have never heard one reason except for the bible and since this is not a theocracy, we don`t make our laws based on holy books.

So please, no bulls.hit, no hyperbole, no slippery slope, just give me one legitimate reason why you feel homosexuals should be denied equal marriage rights.

I find it nasty. I`ll admit it. But some of my best friends are gay and I volunteer for gay rights groups. Me finding what they do in their bedrooms nasty doesn`t affect my respect for them as human beings and my belief that they have every right to live their life as they see fit and be happy.

I find the idea of old people, fat people, and ugly people bumping nasties to be nauseating as well. I don`t try to take their rights away because of it.

OldOllie: I said it last night, and I`ll say it again; you are a miserable, whiny child in an adult`s body. Stop pointing fingers (always at "libtards", I might add) and put on some big boy pants. Your ignorant spew is the just bile.

Every time someone uses the word "homophobe," I want to just slap the $#!+ out of them. It`s just slandering those who disagree with the liberal gay political agenda as having a phobia, i.e., a mental disease that manifests as an irrational fear. I know a lot of people who oppose gay marriage and aren`t the least bit afraid of homosexuals.

I`ll say it again: liberals have nothing left to offer except lies and slander.

El Chinche, it`s certainly possible that we could do that. And I support that, myself. However, I know full and well that plural marriage proponents will use the legal precedent of this redefinition of marriage to their advantage. And in due time, I think they will be successful in at least some states. I`m actually curious to see what will happen.

How is it that the same people who finger their anuses in frustration and piss and moan about their "freedoms" being lost are the same weak-kneed knuckle-draggers that howl that gay people dont deserve the same freedoms we have? I`m sorry, but conservatives are just downright un-American f u c k s

Be honest homophobes, you just find the idea of two dudes bumping uglies to be nasty, and a smaller portion you find the idea of two girls slapping clams icky. That`s it, just be honest with yourselves and let the rest of the world move on without you. And Andrew155, how about we just define marriage as a commitment between two consenting adults, there simple and clean. No need to bring polygamy or any other odd fetish into this, that just makes a person look ignorant when they try to tie it to gay gay marriage.

if your religion told you it was a sin to eat cookies (which would be the worst religion ever) that would be fine for you but you would not run off and make it so everyone else cannot have cookies either...come on stop trying to take my cookies away from me...oh sorry. you get the point.

@Byfield: If gay marriage isn`t part of your religion then fine, don`t let members of your church enter into a gay marriage. You refuse to accept gay marriage outside of your church yet you will accept/tolerate people whose entire belief system is different to your own, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews... why focus on just one small part of life? It`s homophobia hiding behind religion. Marriage isn`t a concept owned by Christianity, or do you also refuse to recognize the marriage of non-Christians? Want people to recognize your marriage? Then do as your Jesus said: Do unto others dude!

but sure, there`s a difference between being anti-gay or anti-gay marriage. the marriage thing can at time make sense. i dont mind gays being able to get a partnership.. it kind of makes me feel like all kinds of marriages should be called "partnerships"

all marriage is today is a recognition from the state that the two of you will most likely raise children and lead a stable household. marriage today means something different than it did 200 years ago. if marriage didnt exist, would be bother to invent it? sure, but it would be called partnership. because that is pretty much what it actually is.

Well, the legitimate argument against gay marriage would be something like, "It leaves the door open for plural marriage". And it does. If you support gay marriage, then who are you to say that, if all parties are willing, people can`t get married to one another.

That said, I don`t care. I think all sides spend too much time debating gay issues.